3.

Is there significant difference in the degree of risk exposures among the different
SMEs in the following industry clusters
3.1. marine;
3.2. fruit;
3.3. meat;
3.4. handicrafts;
3.5. lending;
3.6. pawnshops; and
3.7.
rural banks
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
Hazard Based

.536

Within Groups

14.763

41

.360

Total

17.982

47

4.387

.731

Within Groups

27.691

41

.675

Total

32.078

47

4.318

.720

Within Groups

37.688

41

.919

Total

42.006

47

8.192

1.365

Within Groups

29.810

41

.727

Total

38.002

47

Between Groups
Financial

Between Groups
Operational

Mean Square

3.219

Between Groups
Strategic

df

Sig.

F
1.490

.206

1.083

.389

.783

.588

1.878

.108

Using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), results showed that there is no significant difference in
the degree of risk exposures among the different SMEs (Significance>0.05). These results
suggest the SMEs have more or less the same level of risk exposures. If ever there is difference
in their exposures to risks then that difference is not significant.

5. Is there significant difference in the extent to which these risks are managed by the
different SME industry clusters?
ANOVA
Sum of Squares

BUSINESS PLANNING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &

SAFETY

11.917

1.986

Within Groups

25.059

41

.611

Total

36.976

47

3.321

.554

Within Groups

41.996

41

1.024

Total

45.318

47

2.879

.480

21.214

41

.517

Total

24.093

47

Between Groups

11.134

1.856

Within Groups

33.145

41

.808

Total

44.280

47

8.520

1.420

Within Groups

33.299

41

.812

Total

41.819

47

4.442

.740

Within Groups

32.012

41

.781

Total

36.453

47

4.692

.782

Within Groups

36.188

41

.883

Total

40.881

47

Between Groups

HUMAN RESOURCE MNGT Within Groups

Between Groups
FINANCIAL MNGT

CLIENT-CUSTOMER
RELATIONSHIP

Between Groups

Between Groups
QUALITY ASSURANCE

Mean Square

Between Groups

Between Groups

COMPLIANCE

df

Sig.

F
3.250

.010

.540

.774

.927

.486

2.296

.053

1.748

.134

.948

.472

.886

.514

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results showed that there is significant difference to
the extent to which these risks are managed by the different SME industry clusters but
only in the category of Business Planning (sig=0.010 which is less than 0.5)) while the
rest of the categories have no significant differences (sig>0.05).
These results suggest the SMEs differ significantly on risk management practices when
it comes to Business Planning.
Test was conducted further to see where the difference lies in the category of
BUSINESS PLANNING between groups of industry clusters. This test was done using
Least Square Difference (LSD).

LSD Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: BUSINESS PLANNING
(I) IIndustry Clusters

(J) IIndustry Clusters

Mean Difference

Std. Error

Sig.

(I-J)
.61806

.208

-.4569

2.0394

Meat

-.79375

.61806

.206

-2.0419

.4544

Handicrafts

-.08375

.47875

.862

-1.0506

.8831

Lending

-.67349

.32950

.047

-1.3389

-.0081

Pawnshops

-.74653

.37988

.056

-1.5137

.0207

-1.58375

.47875

.002

-2.5506

-.6169

-.79125

.61806

.208

-2.0394

.4569

-1.58500

.78179

.049

-3.1639

-.0061

-.87500

.67705

.203

-2.2423

.4923

.58118

.016

-2.6384

-.2910

.61115

.016

-2.7720

-.3035

-2.37500

.67705

.001

-3.7423

-1.0077

.79375

.61806

.206

-.4544

2.0419

1.58500

.78179

.049

.0061

3.1639

Handicrafts

.71000

.67705

.300

-.6573

2.0773

Lending

.12026

.58118

.837

-1.0534

1.2940

Pawnshops

.04722

.61115

.939

-1.1870

1.2815

Rural Banks

-.79000

.67705

.250

-2.1573

.5773

Marine

.08375

.47875

.862

-.8831

1.0506

Fruit

.87500

.67705

.203

-.4923

2.2423

Meat

-.71000

.67705

.300

-2.0773

.6573

Lending

-.58974

.43008

.178

-1.4583

.2788

Pawnshops

-.66278

.46980

.166

-1.6116

.2860

-1.50000

.55281

.010

-2.6164

-.3836

.67349*

.32950

.047

.0081

1.3389

Fruit

1.46474

.58118

.016

.2910

2.6384

Meat

-.12026

.58118

.837

-1.2940

1.0534

Handicrafts

.58974

.43008

.178

-.2788

1.4583

Pawnshops

-.07304

.31635

.819

-.7119

.5658

-.91026

.43008

.040

-1.7788

-.0417

.74653

.37988

.056

-.0207

1.5137

Fruit

1.53778

.61115

.016

.3035

2.7720

Meat

-.04722

.61115

.939

-1.2815

1.1870

Handicrafts

.66278

.46980

.166

-.2860

1.6116

Lending

.07304

.31635

.819

-.5658

.7119

-.83722

.46980

.082

-1.7860

.1116

Marine

1.58375*

.47875

.002

.6169

2.5506

Fruit

2.37500*

.67705

.001

1.0077

3.7423

Meat

.79000

.67705

.250

-.5773

2.1573

1.50000*

.55281

.010

.3836

2.6164

Marine
Meat
Handicrafts
Lending
Pawnshops
Rural Banks

Marine
Fruit

Handicrafts

Rural Banks

Marine

Lending

Rural Banks

Marine

Pawnshops

Rural Banks

Rural Banks

Upper Bound

.79125

Rural Banks

Meat

Lower Bound

Fruit

Marine

Fruit

95% Confidence Interval

Handicrafts

-1.46474
-1.53778

Lending

.91026*

.43008

.040

.0417

1.7788

Pawnshops

.83722

.46980

.082

-.1116

1.7860

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

LSD test results showed that in the area of Business Planning, there is significant
difference between :
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Marine and Lending

Marine and Rural Banks
Fruit and Meat
Fruit and Lending
Fruit and Pawnshops
Fruit and Rural Banks
Handicrafts and Rural Banks

6. Is there significant relationship between the degree of risk exposures and the extent
of risk management practices of SMEs?
Correlations
Risk Exposures

RISK
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES

Pearson Correlation
Risk Exposures

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation

RISK MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.375

**

.009
48

48

**

.375

.009
48

48

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Results of Correlation showed that there is moderate positive correlation with r=0.375, between
risk exposures and the extent of risk management practices of SMEs. This positive correlation
suggests that SMEs with high level of risk of exposures have the tendency to be high on level
when it comes to risk management practices.